AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-10-26, 02:39   Link #31001
Drifloon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
This is pretty much exactly why she can't be the culprit. She's a red herring.
I wouldn't say that, it probably just means that someone else killed George. It'd be pretty hard for Eva to have done it anyway. The fantasy scene seems to suggest that George saw Shannon alive before he was killed, so that makes it pretty clear that Yasu did it, though I admit that I never really understood the motive for it (or for any of the murders that occur after the eighth twilight in all games).

Quote:
I know there are critics saying the story makes no sense if you can't trust the Author but the irony is I DO trust the Author.I trust he's NOT Incompetent, I trust he didn't screw up the story and I DO trust the very rules he gave the story so the actual truth is the Shkanon believers are the ones not trusting Ryukishi as they're the ones thinking he messed up.
Haha, I haven't seen that part of the video yet, but that's pretty funny. Yes, I can see how that must appeal to people. Thinking that they're part of the elite, who beat the game on a higher difficulty than everyone else, so they can look down on the people who believe the official explanation. Even though they all just heard someone else's theory and blindly accepted it, rather than actually figuring anything out for themselves. KNM certainly does know how to manipulate people, I'll give him that.

But really, in the end, if this really was Ryukishi's intention...what exactly is the reward for beating the game on 'hard mode', so to speak?

The official explanation gives almost every scene in the game a new meaning, and provides an answer that is psychologically fascinating, meaningful and, I would say, beautiful.

What does KNM's explanation do in comparison to that? All he does is turn an incredibly unique and imaginative work into 'just another murder mystery'. He's got a solution that makes some logical sense, at the cost of any actual meaning that the story might have had.

If you prioritise finding a 'logical' solution over anything else, you're following in the footsteps of Bern and Erika, the characters who are consistently portrayed negatively throughout the series. Heck, KNM's justification for using "fake death drugs" all over the place is simply that Erika mentioned it once. When one reads the series with KNM's explanation in mind, does it really make the story any better, or any more meaningful? I don't think it does. Huge parts of the game become completely meaningless, like most of the 1998 sections and the vast majority of EP7-8, while single obscure lines are blown out of proportion to become incredibly significant, such as the thing about Nanjo's grandchild that KNM somehow manages to expand into a motive to help with a mass murder.

I just don't understand how anyone could read Umineko and come to the conclusion that Ryukishi wanted us to become intellectual rapists in this way. It seems to me that for all the time KNM has obviously spent on Umineko, he still doesn't really understand it at all.
Drifloon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 04:02   Link #31002
Kiltias
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkama View Post
The thing I don't get about Eva being the Culprit for EP3 is why she would kill George. That has never made sense to me. Maybe if George attacked her she would injure him but she definitely wouldn't kill him.
I think its safe to say Eva could never kill George so whoever killed him was not her.
Quote:
I wouldn't say that, it probably just means that someone else killed George. It'd be pretty hard for Eva to have done it anyway. The fantasy scene seems to suggest that George saw Shannon alive before he was killed, so that makes it pretty clear that Yasu did it, though I admit that I never really understood the motive for it (or for any of the murders that occur after the eighth twilight in all games).
I always thought George and Shannon/Yasu were killed by one of the 3 who went into the Mansion (Or was it Guesthouse?) as Ronove refused to answer the deaths of Kyrie,Rudolf and Hideyoshi all 3 being comfirmed dead only after Nanjo was killed.


Regarding the part with any murder after the 8th Twilight:
EP 1: Natsuhi was a survivor that wasn't supposed to be alive as she was supposed to die in the 1st with the charm having saved her.
Jessica handing her the charm screwed up the order Yasu intended, probably the reason why there were only 5 in the shed, then again IMO it makes more sense that there were 6 with Yasu faking it.IIRC Battler mentioned he couldn't count the corpses on one hand.Correct me if I'm wrong though.
It's interesting that Natsuhi would have originally died at the first.
Natsuhi - Krauss
Kyrie - Rudolf

Gohda always seemed to random.Also interesting:
Natsuhi,Krauss,Kyrie,Rudolf. If Battler and Jessica would have been in there then it'd be all the people who sat on the same side of the dinner table.
Instead, those two were saved by the Scorpion Charm, Jessica because Maria DID hand her one so still Taboo.
Might be looking into it too much but how they were seated is just odd.
Eva - Rosa - George - Maria - Hideyoshi - Nanjo
Krauss-Rudolf-Jessica-Battler-Natsuhi-Kyrie

Wait:
Nanjo - Accomplice
Maria - Messenger
Hideyoshi - Accomplice (?)
Eva - Evatrice
Rosa - Accomplice in EP 2?
George - Double death with Jessica.

And not just random people either:
Maria - Rosa
Eva - Hideyoshi - George
Nanjo

Regarding EP 3:
I see it 2 ways:
George was killed by Yasu as he caught her being alive and also killed Nanjo.
I suspect Yasu feared Nanjo would side with Eva to kill Jessica so it might be more Kanon.
Implying Yasus personalities went haywire in it.
Seeing George reincarnated Shannons personality.
And am I mixing up EP's now or didn't Kanons ghost or something appear in front of blind Jessica?
Could mean that its not some ghost but it was actually Yasu/Kanon who killed Nanjo.

My 2nd way:
Kyrie,Rudolf and Hideyoshi weren't comfirmed dead until after Nanjos death.
If Kyrie or Rudolf were actually alive killing George, I can see Evas motive for killing Battler.

Someone mentioned an interesting idea here, George going on a killing streak because Shannon actually decided for Battler.

EDIT:
I forgot the numbers.
Youtuber got me inspired.
Look at the deaths and see if you can find it first when looking at Battlers Birthday in regards to him and Beatrices "Birthday" in regards to her.:
The 07
The 15
-
The 11
and the 29

All 4 fit to the deaths.

Last edited by Kiltias; 2012-10-26 at 06:22.
Kiltias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 09:12   Link #31003
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
So I've got a question for you. Why did Lambda let Battler use the red text? This seems to be the root cause of his victory, after all.
Pretty much for the same reason Ryukishi did: To make it more interesting in an otherwise static situation. And because she knows he knows the truth now. Whether he does or not really shouldn't change the rules though.

There's no point in Battler's apotheosis if we are intentionally left with gaps in understanding he also ought to have (even if the person he is representing perhaps doesn't, but we don't know that guy exists yet). There's also no point in it if it lets him extract himself from his situation "just because." The problem is that even if the gold text works as advertised, Battler isn't really proving his point.

Essentially, Battler has advanced an alternative theory which allows it to be introduced that Kinzo is already dead (and he has another tack on this theory which he busts out after the gold is used which seals it up). Except he still can't just say that; he points out himself that there is no objective way to verify it. He then is just... sorta like "Yeah this is it." Now, why might he say that?

Let's assume for the moment that his gold truth is not some unsolicited thing, but an actual "golden truth," as Will would put it, that establishes some manner of illusion, or could do so, on the board itself. Let's also look at the context for this. Battler wants to say that Kinzo is dead in red. Erika does not want to allow this and thus Battler must produce "proof of a human's truth that could be used to make that point."

Let us go with the operating theory that a golden truth is a "human's truth," and this is why Battler is using it. This essentially boils his argument down to the following:

BATTLER: Your theory is wrong because Kinzo is dead.
ERIKA: Prove it.
BATTLER: There exists a corpse, and that corpse might be Kinzo's.
ERIKA: Prove it.
BATTLER: I can't.
ERIKA: Right, because there's no way to say it's Kinzo's, so I win.
BATTLER: Well, no. There is a way to say it's Kinzo's: Everybody can just agree that it's Kinzo's, or I can lie that it's Kinzo's, or at least state it's Kinzo's based on a reasonable belief that I hold.
ERIKA: Okay, so you can't prove my theory is actually invalid. Just that you're capable of lying about evidence to make people doubt me, which is irrelevant in this meta-theater where objective truth can be tossed around.
BATTLER: I guess. Also, I was in on everything and the victims weren't really dead, so nobody's alibi holds up. I'm not an objective viewpoint so everything I saw and did could be a lie. This invalidates your theory far more comprehensively than any of this nonsense about Kinzo, and I could have pointed this out at any time.
ERIKA: Why didn't you?
BATTLER: I'unno. Anyway I'm a wizard.

You see the problem? Battler is making a point, but only in the very narrow sense that he is answering Erika's demand that he produce a "human's truth." What Erika appears to have meant is that she wants a truth by which a human could verify an objective fact without supernatural aid; what Battler appears to do with the gold is demonstrate the existence of a truth which a human can "verify" by just agreeing that's what the truth is. This does technically answer her demand. It doesn't, however, actually satisfy it. Worse, unlike Beatrice in Dawn who is also answering a question that wasn't actually asked, he's not actually even really contributing anything to the argument by doing it. Yeah, a human could just agree that a corpse is Kinzo's... so? That's pretty much what Dlanor is driving at in the first place.

The structure of the argument sort of doesn't even need the gold. You could still use it, but I think it best saved for the end if it shows up anywhere at all. This is how I would structure the argument:
  • Erika presents her insanely detailed alibi setup for 24:00 to 1:00, indicating that nobody but Natsuhi could have been involved. Battler questions how the bodies could have disappeared later given that Natsuhi's position in the morning was known (thus, how could she be the culprit).
  • Erika proposes that Kinzo moved the bodies. At this point, she makes some admission about Kinzo which is designed to explain away that nobody could have seen him but Natsuhi at any time. Perhaps something that would require Kinzo have been in Natsuhi's room at the time they were solving the epitaph, to establish him as her accomplice.
  • Battler counters with the theory that he committed the murders after 1:00. Erika assures him that based upon her observation, it was impossible for the crime to have happened after 1:00.
  • Battler instead proposes that the deaths did not happen during the 1:00 to the discovery period at all. Erika argues this is impossible because Battler's viewpoint is objective.
  • Battler argues that his viewpoint is not objective because Erika is the detective instead of him. Erika demands evidence that this is true.
  • Battler points out seeing Kinzo, which should not have happened. He explains that either he did see Kinzo and Erika's admission about Kinzo's behavior and location is wrong, or he didn't see Kinzo and his viewpoint is therefore non-objective. Since Erika still believes Kinzo is integral to her theory, she permits that his viewpoint be non-objective.
  • Battler therefore concludes an equally-valid theory that the "crime" was faked with his participation, and nobody died until after the discovery, opening the possibility that Natsuhi isn't guilty.
  • Erika, however, points out that her theory about Natsuhi and Kinzo is equally valid, so the two are only ever able to reach a total stalemate.
  • Battler now attacks the notion that Kinzo could be alive, with Erika demanding something to support this. Battler suggests that it is possible to present a corpse which might be identifiable as Kinzo. Erika counters that there is no objective way to verify this. Battler argues that Rokkenjima is a closed state, and the corpse must belong to somebody who ought to be on the island. He argues that if everyone else is alive, the corpse cannot be anyone but Kinzo.
  • OPTIONAL: Erika counters that everyone might not be alive, but that even if they are, there exists "no possible way for a human to say the corpse is Kinzo's."
  • OPTIONAL: Battler now uses the gold truth, demonstrating that there is a way for a human to say that. Erika is unable to understand, but all the witches acknowledge that Battler is right. Nobody tells Erika despite her insistent demands.
  • On the weight of the evidence, Lambda and Dlanor conclude Battler's theory to have greater validity than Erika's. Erika understands why she lost (her theory is flimsier than Battler's), but doesn't understand what Battler was doing with the gold truth.
It's only slightly different, but by changing the structure and adding more meat to the Kinzo argument, it allows the gold to function as a capstone that merely demonstrates Battler's mastery of understanding rather than permitting him to continue making an argument he probably could've made anyway. Is it less dramatic? Probably. However, it also works more appropriately here as a "finishing move" as it's been described in interviews. The fact that he does it is what causes Lambda to finally just admit the whole thing was silly and he's been right the whole time. It also makes the gold unnecessary; Battler's theory seems more complete than Erika's even without it, so it's not something that must be relied upon. However, by everyone's agreement with it, Erika's theory is entirely and finally discarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalAura View Post
People kept talking about it, but as I recall, what ended up being the right answer was actually proposed with supporting evidence before Dawn came out. You can work out most of it just by looking at the restrictions Battler had to dodge around, and then you can get the rest by realizing that gold truth represents Beatrice's power of endless magic in the same way that red and blue truth represent Lambda and Bern's power. There were passages all over the series about the idea of unfalsifiable theories and how everyone's belief in something creates a kind of truth.
If by that you mean someone guessed, well yeah. People guessed Yasu by ep4. You could sort of retroactively say the person "saw the hints," but it's more that they took a thematic guess and happened to be right before sufficient evidence was in. If indeed sufficient evidence ever was in on the gold.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 11:21   Link #31004
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
So I've got a question for you. Why did Lambda let Battler use the red text? This seems to be the root cause of his victory, after all.
Well, Lambda promoted Battler to Golden Witch/wizard so as such he could use red and even use Beato's furnitures.
Also Battler used red in EP 4 also.
Also EP 5 showed that even Natsuhi could use red when it was a truth they possessed. She knew for sure she only told Shannon about which season she liked so the text had it written in red... even though I don't think Natsuhi was aware of it.
So, if Battler now knows for sure how things went and it's not just a theory but the truth I guess he can use red.

EP 4 showed also he won't be able to use red if his belief was untrue so I think Battler's red is an extra demostration he solved the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkama View Post
The thing I don't get about Eva being the Culprit for EP3 is why she would kill George. That has never made sense to me. Maybe if George attacked her she would injure him but she definitely wouldn't kill him.
For me Eva was an accomplice, the real culprit being Yasu again.
Eva-Beatrice represents that Yasu was using her as red herring, like she was doing with Natsuhi in Ep 5 and, at the same time, might represent the fight inside Eva about accepting to be an accomplice in this just for the gold.

Let's pretend Eva didn't solve the epitaph but was handed the solution and the title in exchange for cooperation in a 'murderer game'. She's shown the gold. She agreed to help although she has her doubts but she's promised nothing will happen to those whom she holds dear.
However when she's about to leave she meets Rosa, who had followed her.
So she comes to an agreement with Rosa so that she won't say anything so that Eva will secretly be able to continue playing accomplice.
However Yasu thinks Rosa might know something she shouldn't and therefore killed her and Maria.
Eva begins to regret making an agreement with 'Beatrice' just for the gold and headship but doesn't dare to confess.

It's likely that although Beato contacted her she didn't show herself in person, like she did with Natsuhi so, even if Eva wanted to talk with whom she could talk?

From here things go downhill. Yasu keeps on killing and Eva doesn't know whom to suspect. In the end she believes it's Battler who's the culprit and shoots him while Yasu was busy offing Nanjo (and possibly creating a mystery of how Jessica could reach another room and claim Kanon leads her there).

No idea if Yasu offed Jessica too or let her there, Eva went searching for her, wanting to tell her she had killed the one she believed to be culprit, found Nanjo dead, knew it coudn't have been Battler so believed Jessica did it, offed Jessica and then escaped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Essentially, Battler has advanced an alternative theory which allows it to be introduced that Kinzo is already dead (and he has another tack on this theory which he busts out after the gold is used which seals it up). Except he still can't just say that; he points out himself that there is no objective way to verify it. He then is just... sorta like "Yeah this is it." Now, why might he say that?
Personally I always thought that the golden truth represent a firm, personal belief and therefore a truth that, for that person, doesn't need proof.

Sort of like saying God exists.

That's why it can be less strong or more strong than red. If red can shake your belief the golden truth will be destroyed. If red can't it will be stronger.

I guess the idea the GM could use it comes from the fact that the GM build the gameboard according to certain personal beliefs the GM couldn't really check, for example that Sakutaro was built by Rosa and the only one in the world.

Beato couldn't really check this as Sakutaro isn't fictional but existed in reality too and she had no control over reality nor the way to check.

She probably would have been able to say in gold that Sakutaro was Rosa's handmade gift, at least before Ange provided her with evidence there was more than 1 Sakutaro and she lost her belief in that truth.

Maria insted might be still able to say it in gold as likely she would be capable to make up an explanation she could believe in her mind and that won't deny the 'Rosa made it theory'. Of course her gold might weaken if her theory is countered by many reds... though we see that in Maria's battle with Erika, although she loses she didn't really give up therefore shaking Maria's beliefs might be harder than we think.

Red instead is more restrictive as we're proven that, no matter what you believe, you can't say it if it isn't true (at least according to the interpretation you give to your own words). However for the red you say to be accepted by the other party you either have the other accept it (usually by providing proof) or it can be rejected and, although you're saying the truth, nobody will believe you (and the red truth will have no strenght like it happened to Battler in Ep 5).

That though is how I interpret it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cao Ni Ma View Post
It comes down to how much you can suspend your belief. The rain issue RK describes is pretty easy to discard since it would screw up the game in many ways. Things like carts on a second floor aren't really that important since there are ways to transport food easily to multiple floors without having a big elevator.

The gold truth dilemma is much harder to hand wave, probably because its on a meta level (so we cant blame Yasu just being a bad writer). You cant say "Hey just ignore this tiny detail, the story is more fun if you do" because of how important its made to be in that scene.

Its bad storytelling on part of RK because thinking about it retroactively you see how glaring a hole it is.
I would be fine with suspending my belief if it wasn't that Umineko is a game about reasoning.
In short, if someone doesn't get sopping wet in a storm I'm going to assume there's a reason and that this reason is relevant to find the solution.
Same for the carts or whatever else.
The suspension of belief works nicely when there's no reasoning to do or when I'm warned beforehand that this part will 'escape to normal logic/true facts/whatever'.

Otherwise placing something in that asks me to suspend my disbelief is misleading. How can I know I'm not supposed to wonder on it to reach the solution?

Last edited by jjblue1; 2012-10-26 at 11:40.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 15:48   Link #31005
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
The funniest thing about the rain, of course, is that characters are variously described as having gotten wet in the rain all the damn time, just ... not ... always. It makes me think of the hypothetical logic battle where Erika decides to push the point for her reasoning (remember, she DID go so far as to look at the mud on peoples shoes during her crazy CSI investigation), and Beato eventually having to just go "Look, I just don't really care about that, okay? The rain on Rokkenjima is just odd in that way, or something."

About the matter of "trust", I think there's a difference between TRUSTING an author, and thinking they're some kind of infallible Mystery Pope who never make mistakes, or subjective judgements in their own reasoning, and only offer solutions that will CERTAINLY please every person ever. It's not that I distrust Ryukishi's authorship, or "messed up his own story" or anything absurd like that ... I just think it's built on some bullshit-ery, and I accept it, since there's this HUGE running theme in the work about accepting people's bullshit-ery and understanding why they end up using said bullshit-ery.

On George in EP3, hell, the part that's always gotten me isn't that he's dead (Yasu and her shenanigans, or whatevs), but the part where Nanjo was all "Yeah, George - jump out the second story window! Go gaze upon the face of your recently murdered fiancee. I'll totes cover for you." It is SO inexplicable.
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 16:09   Link #31006
Valkama
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
To be honest Ryukishi missed out on a great opportunity to troll everyone in episode 6 with Gold truth.
Valkama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 16:40   Link #31007
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
On George in EP3, hell, the part that's always gotten me isn't that he's dead (Yasu and her shenanigans, or whatevs), but the part where Nanjo was all "Yeah, George - jump out the second story window! Go gaze upon the face of your recently murdered fiancee. I'll totes cover for you." It is SO inexplicable.
Well, I prefer to think that Nanjo told him he was having second thoughts on Shannon being really dead and George, as desperate as he was to have Shannon back, forgot to turn his brain on and blindly believed whatever Nanjo were to say because it would be better than the truth.

On a second thought Nanjo might have had second thoughts and hoped that, if George were to talk to Yasu she would stop and then send him to do just so. However this instead causes Yasu to have to kill George whom she might have possibly wanted to leave alive till the end so she, in retaliation, kill Nanjo when it wasn't necessary anymore (she didn't need sacrifices anymore and she could have waited for the bomb to go KABOOM) maybe in fear he would tattle out the truth to someone else.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 17:45   Link #31008
Valkama
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
I noticed something. All the points in EP3 where Beatrice is present is the same spot where Nanjo is and or Nanjo could easily be. What if in EP3 Nanjo = Beatrice.

1st Twilight: Suppose we use Battler's solution, Nanjo would have the key and could easily have backstabbed Yasu at night.

2nd Twilight: Had no Alibi.

George and the Window: Nanjo supposedly let him out. Beatrice Supposedly let him out.

Beatrice Reunited George with Shannon: Nanjo could have killed him to "Reunite" Them.

Nanjo dies infront of the room where Jessica is. Beatrice is defeated infront of the room where Jessica is.

Nanjotrice Theory go.
Valkama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 18:42   Link #31009
GuestSpeaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
that gold truth represents Beatrice's power of endless magic in the same way that red and blue truth represent Lambda and Bern's power
I never understood why Bern's power of miracles was the same as the human power of proposing something is possible, but I must admit the other two colours work well.

In regards to the rain, can someone provide a situation where the culprit would have to have been wet and had no time to dry off? I am sure there is one, I just can't really think of it.


And as an aside:

It is hard to determine if there was any sort of murder game or not, but in my mind it doesn't really matter to this part of the theory. Either by them solving it or Yasu simply deciding to help, the existence of the gold was made clear (by the way, I always wondered if it were truly that big a pile. All the fights over it and just logic would dictate there was probably a lot of money's worth, but not that massive mountain).

I was trying to think of reasons for Battler to be in one tunnel and Eva to be alone in another. Using themes from the story and Ryu's interview stating the adults did something, I had an idea that doesn't involve multiple paranoia mass murders (which always sat poorly with me).

All through the series we have seen the cousins, and specifically Battler, leave the adults in disgust when they argue over inheritance. I was thinking it was likely the adults were shown the gold, and they fought over it. Then I couldn't imagine why Eva would leave that sort of argument, and all I could think of is the series has shown us from ep 1 Eva worrying she is a bad and selfish mother, and George promising to fight for Shannon. So I wonder if some heated words weren't exchanged between Eva and George. Why Hideyoshi would let her go off alone is questionable, but all I have is gold for that one, or maybe she herself sent him back to make sure they got some.

How the bomb gets set off is a further question, but anything that comes of that question is pure speculation, though we have received two possible hints: the shattering of the clock and screen shown often in loading, and more strongly, the scene where it was made clear the adults might not trust Yasu's claims as to whether the clock was on or off. The only thing about this is Our Confession sort of says that Kinzo never really sat around playing with some clock switch and everyone's lives, and that that was an embellishment made to convince Natsuhi.

This vicious behavior by the adults and the way Kyrie and Rudolf had been acting before dying might have been what Eva wanted to keep from Ange, with the fact even she doesn't know what happened in the last few minutes being a further blow.

All theories are possible in a catbox.
GuestSpeaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 19:41   Link #31010
Joeyscraggy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valkama View Post
The thing I don't get about Eva being the Culprit for EP3 is why she would kill George. That has never made sense to me. Maybe if George attacked her she would injure him but she definitely wouldn't kill him.
I always interpreted that scene like this: George goes to Shannon, Shannon "revives" when George is crying over her to reassure him, and tell him they will be together forever on the Golden Land or something like that. Comes Eva and sees them hugging and goes all "Bitch, stop hugging mah boy or i'll kill you". She points her rifle at her but George gets in her way and bam! Joji is dead and his body falls over Shannon, who either faints or fakes her dead using George's blood.
Then Eva cries over her son's death, and supposes Shannon is dead, not realizing the truth. Shannon recovers and goes to protect Jessica as Kanon, then kills Nanjo and dies.

I guess Eva's localization at George death can deny this, but I can't remember where she was exactly, so there's my 2-cents
Joeyscraggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 20:07   Link #31011
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuestSpeaker View Post
All through the series we have seen the cousins, and specifically Battler, leave the adults in disgust when they argue over inheritance. I was thinking it was likely the adults were shown the gold, and they fought over it. Then I couldn't imagine why Eva would leave that sort of argument, and all I could think of is the series has shown us from ep 1 Eva worrying she is a bad and selfish mother, and George promising to fight for Shannon. So I wonder if some heated words weren't exchanged between Eva and George. Why Hideyoshi would let her go off alone is questionable, but all I have is gold for that one, or maybe she herself sent him back to make sure they got some.
Are you basing this off of that one hidden frame from when Ange reads Eva's diary which has George looking upset?
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 21:53   Link #31012
RandomAvatarFan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
I don't remember any hidden frames or anything? All remember is Ange looking into Eva's Diary and then jumping off the building.
__________________

Without love this picture cannot be seen.
RandomAvatarFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-26, 23:29   Link #31013
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
It's in the game data, but isn't programmed to show up when you actually play the game. That's what I meant by "hidden".

But yeah, in that sequence of pictures (when Ange reads Eva's diary) there's a couple more pictures in the game data. One is of outside the mansion with George looking mad, and another is of Natsuhi, looking worried, standing in front of Beatrice's portrait. I don't remember if there were more.

Jan-Poo posted it a while back in this post, but the picture link is dead now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
I don't know if someone already made this

Anyway I put together the various frames that are shown when Ange reads Eva's diary in EP8. I included also the frames that still appear in the code, and still exist among the graphic files, but that were later removed.

Note that all of these are already bmp you can find in the game, they aren't screenshots I made.

Spoiler for Big file:
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 08:50   Link #31014
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Finished translating Our Confessions:

Spoiler for After-discussion between Dlanor and Beatrice:
Lastly is the epilogue. You may remember it as "Dlanor's forward", but that's not what it is; it's actually the epilogue. LyricalAura's already done this translation so I feel no need to translate it again myself. It's been around for a long time and I take no credit for it. I include it here only for the sake of completion.

Spoiler for Dlanor's epilogue:
And that's that. I will later set up a blog or something to host the entire, fully compiled translation.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 17:20   Link #31015
chronotrig
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Buffer overflow
@Renall:
Spoiler for size:

Well, it's great that you're making theories. However, I think this illustrates the point you're missing here.

You constructed that theory by reading over EP5 after you finished it and finding clues. You had to think very carefully over all you read and build a "story" of your own.

If Ryuukishi had included that part of the "answer" directly in his ending, you wouldn't have gotten the chance to do that bit of reasoning. It would only be a matter of tying up a few loose ends and grading Ryuukishi on his work, rather than actually playing the game he's made. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you had this whole theory ready to go before reading the end of the Hidden Tea Party. It's thanks to Ryuukishi's writing style that you were able to figure it out for yourself.


Also, as for the theory itself, I think Dlanor would have asked a lot more questions, considering that you've shown no evidence that the theory actually happened (only some indirect evidence that it might have been possible), and since there's no explanation as to motive, either for Battler or the people who went along with his plan. Erika covered both of these bases in her theory, so at least at the moment, hers is still superior.
__________________
"The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter 'q' into a privet bush. But, unfortunately, there are times when it is unavoidable."
--Hitchhikers


www.witch-hunt.com Theory page
chronotrig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-27, 21:12   Link #31016
GuestSpeaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Are you basing this off of that one hidden frame from when Ange reads Eva's diary which has George looking upset
Not at all, I had forgotten that. I am more basing it on firstly the nature of loving a servant when you have the better part of an arranged marriage waiting for you, and of course Episodes 1 through 6 (especially 6). Even in the 8th game I am sure there was some "noooooo Georgi you can't love a servant" joke.

But mostly the fact the George often talks about telling his mother (or at least tells Shannon about it) and we are shown a rather dramatic interpretation of that event in ep 6. Plus there is a certain tragedy to Eva getting angry and telling him to go off and do what he likes (see: Rosa and Maria in the rain) to feel first regret, then like a selfish mother, and then to have him blown to pieces.
GuestSpeaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 00:01   Link #31017
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronotrig View Post
Well, it's great that you're making theories. However, I think this illustrates the point you're missing here.
Don't tell me what "points" you think I'm missing. It's so pretentious. Stop being such a condescending dick and just say you disagree with people if you disagree. You act like you know something more than you're letting on and you don't know a damn thing more than anybody else.

And if you do, for the love of God just come out with it and stop with the intellectual masturbation. At least I have the courtesy to do my masturbation in public.

Also, it wasn't a theory, which you would have noticed if you'd bothered to actually read it instead of just quoting it to talk down to me. It was a rewrite suggestion. It's not a theory because it's not an attempt to explain the work itself, but to restructure it.
Quote:
You constructed that theory by reading over EP5 after you finished it and finding clues. You had to think very carefully over all you read and build a "story" of your own.

If Ryuukishi had included that part of the "answer" directly in his ending, you wouldn't have gotten the chance to do that bit of reasoning. It would only be a matter of tying up a few loose ends and grading Ryuukishi on his work, rather than actually playing the game he's made. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you had this whole theory ready to go before reading the end of the Hidden Tea Party. It's thanks to Ryuukishi's writing style that you were able to figure it out for yourself.
Oh wow, no shit? I have to read a work to reason about the work that I've read? I've been doing it wrong all this time reasoning about works that don't exist yet and hoping somebody would write them!

What are you even talking about?

Are you honestly suggesting that his refusal to ever answer anything somehow makes the experience better? Are you genuinely of the belief that leaving the "game" open all the time is better than at least clearing up what's gone on and leaving tantalizing bits for moving forward? Because that's all we need. Bits. It was criminal to begin with to cut the story off and acknowledge that he doesn't really care all that much anymore about coherent lower-level narrative.

Now personally, I think his "writing style" is over-meandering crap and all it did was waste time and intentionally try to confuse everyone. End is nothing more than a few nuggets of interest in a sea of filler. I understand the personal situation may not have been best for him, but he was the one who chose to soldier on with it and release it. There are much better ways to have written End, but quite honestly I think it was a misfire to begin Chiru in the fashion he did to begin with.

Still, trying to offer constructive criticism here with minor suggestions, while addressing the stuff that he actually wrote. What exactly are you doing?
Quote:
Also, as for the theory itself, I think Dlanor would have asked a lot more questions, considering that you've shown no evidence that the theory actually happened (only some indirect evidence that it might have been possible), and since there's no explanation as to motive, either for Battler or the people who went along with his plan. Erika covered both of these bases in her theory, so at least at the moment, hers is still superior.
That's idiotic. Battler's theory has motive all over it and all he needs is something which is plausible, or at least equally as plausible as Erika's theory. Of course, one of the biggest motives requires giving the game away an episode early, but it exists.

Moreover, his theory has more factual credibility, because it opens more avenues for holes in Erika's theory that are conveniently ignored because the trial is unfair and the writing is bad (such as the calls and Krauss's death).

Of course, if you have a better idea, why don't you stop wasting everyone's time and throw it out there? I'm not going to beg you for snippets of your transcendent wisdom.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 15:20   Link #31018
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
Was just wondering, after some thought.
Back in arc 2's intro, Shkanontrice actually seemed so obvious at first. At that point, I did think all three were one being, and I'm sure many others thought something similar. But then came later on in the same arc the red truth. I believed the red truth, and thus discarded what I thought of the intro of arc 2. But in the long run that made me wonder, if ultimately Shkanon was really something hard to accept, or if it wasn't the "betrayal" of the red that made it that way (even tho we've been told over and over that red was a weapon used by the witch against us)?

Because I'm thinking if I forget the existence of the red, we probably would've established them being one being much earlier and not making much a fuss about it when it turned out to be probably true.

Much later the arc 5 parlor scene messed that up further tho. I think that even tho explanations were found for it, all of them seemed to be bending the rules to find a way for it to happen and not be anything very meaningful tho. I still feel like we are missing something there. Still without it and the red, so basically with the narrative of the question arcs, is Shkanon really hard to accept?

+ Wow Renall.
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 15:51   Link #31019
jjblue1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura View Post
Much later the arc 5 parlor scene messed that up further tho. I think that even tho explanations were found for it, all of them seemed to be bending the rules to find a way for it to happen and not be anything very meaningful tho. I still feel like we are missing something there. Still without it and the red, so basically with the narrative of the question arcs, is Shkanon really hard to accept?
Personally for me the reason why I don't like ShKanon is that unless everyone minus Battler is aware of Shannon and Kanon being the same person, nobody noticed it and Yasu was capable to fool everyone for 2/3 years.
Not mentioning that, unless she was already planning the murder game 2/3 years earlier than it happened, the motive for her to lead a double life is weak.

Mind you, I accept it as the solution because that's clearly what it's meant to be but... each time I think at Yasu putting it into practice I've weird flash of Yasu switching clothes in a Clark Kent's style so that she can 'confortably' switch between the two, Natsuhi who suddently stop being the control freak and completely miss the fact that she's paying the same person twice, Kanon or Shannon either skipping work or having to work twice the normal amount Jessica being so blind she doesn't realize her love interest shares the same face as her best friend (let's assume George is really that blind as he wear glasses... or that he never paid Kanon a second glance) and so on.

Just to name a few.

All things that can be possible but that, as far as I'm involved, are hard to swallow when placed together.
jjblue1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-28, 16:32   Link #31020
Wegenbarth
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjblue1 View Post
Personally for me the reason why I don't like ShKanon is that unless everyone minus Battler is aware of Shannon and Kanon being the same person, nobody noticed it and Yasu was capable to fool everyone for 2/3 years.
Not mentioning that, unless she was already planning the murder game 2/3 years earlier than it happened, the motive for her to lead a double life is weak.

Mind you, I accept it as the solution because that's clearly what it's meant to be but... each time I think at Yasu putting it into practice I've weird flash of Yasu switching clothes in a Clark Kent's style so that she can 'confortably' switch between the two, Natsuhi who suddently stop being the control freak and completely miss the fact that she's paying the same person twice, Kanon or Shannon either skipping work or having to work twice the normal amount Jessica being so blind she doesn't realize her love interest shares the same face as her best friend (let's assume George is really that blind as he wear glasses... or that he never paid Kanon a second glance) and so on.

Just to name a few.

All things that can be possible but that, as far as I'm involved, are hard to swallow when placed together.
This, the whole episode 5 (except for the obvious line from Natsuhi "I only told Shannon that I like fall") with Shannon and Kanon being different persons for the detective AND Battler,
Will's sudden red "It's not allowed for a servant to be the culprit"
and the co-existence of Shannon and Kanon TOGETHER with Lion in ep7 despite Shannon's bluescreen still makes me wonder if we should accept ShaKanonTrice as the culprit.

Regarding Natsuhi indirectly telling us that Shannon is one of the culprits in ep5, it is somehow TOO obvious.
In this part I have to agree with KNM with the probability of 4 tarrot-cards in different locations, since it feels so similar to the case from ep7 where Yasu switched Belphagore's key out "with magic". Remeber that scene?)


Especially the red. Why on earth did Ryu07 mention it?
Is he just trolling us (again)?

Shannon also said in her bluescreen ("The one who orders us"), which can mean either Yasu, the troll-author or Kinzo/Genji/Natsuhi.
Wegenbarth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.